About this Show

The Rachel Maddow Show

News/Business. (2013)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:01:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel v787

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

United States 10, Us 8, Nsa 8, John Mccain 4, Rachel 4, John Boehner 4, Wendy Davis 4, Gatica 4, Paul Ryan 4, Cia 3, Angela Merkel 3, Harry Reid 3, Marco Rubio 3, Washington 3, Ron 2, Edward Snowden 2, Herman 2, Eugenics 2, Ryan 2, Europe 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    The Rachel Maddow Show    News/Business.  (2013)  

    October 29, 2013
    1:00 - 1:58am PDT  

1:00am
is, i think in the long run, if the policy is good policy, it will be good politics. in the short run, there is a kind of spin war around the kind of anecdotal evidence that's creeping in. but in the long run, the truth will not be outspun. dr. nancy metcalf, dr. manisha sharma and jonathan kohn. thank you. that is "all in" for right now. now "the rachel maddow show." thank you, chris. and thank you at home for joining us this hour. here's why you want to be a member of congress. maybe you have the public service bug, maybe you were a born legislator, maybe you have an insatiable fetish for the dark mysteries of the cloak room. maybe you're in it for the money and the power! who knows? there are lots of different reasons why a lot of different people would like to be a member of congress, but i think the one reason we can all agree that everybody would like to be a member of congress, no matter what else you think about it, the reason everybody would like that job is abuse of how they work, or at least when they work. but if you were a member of
1:01am
congress, you were supposed to go to work today, then also tomorrow, which is a bummer, but don't worry, you can cut out middle of the day on wednesday. you will not be working thursday or friday. you will not be working all of next week. also, you do not have to work the monday after that. you're going to work a 2 1/2-day week this week, then you're not back until after veterans day. when you come back after veterans day, it's a four-day week followed by another four-day week, and then that's it for the whole month! nice deal, right? i mean, no matter what else might motivate you to want to be in congress, that kind of a schedule and a six-figure salary for doing it, that is a combination that is impossible not to love. and we learned at politico.com late last night -- this is amazing -- that even though congress is already basically not working anymore between now and christmas, they've got just those few days scheduled on the calendar, "internally, speaker john boehner and senior republicans are wondering if
1:02am
they will cancel some of the remaining days in session." they're only planning on working a total of 19 days between now and the end of the year, but they are thinking they might need some more days off on top of that, and that is in part because they do not even know what to do with the days that they are working now. house republican leaders are "struggling to come up with an agenda to fill the 19 legislative days that are left in 2013." i mean, they have been naming courthouses and stuff, and that's all well and good, but apparently, there are no big plans. they're not working on anything else between now and the end of the year. they plan to not do anything. the next big idea they are floating at politico.com today is, i don't know, maybe more vacation? that's their big plan. how about jibber jibber. i have a great job? that is a job. in the midst of this whirlwind of activity, republican members of congress who are working that schedule have started to insist
1:03am
to the press that because of that schedule that they're working in washington right now, they really are way too busy to add anything substantive to their legislative schedule. congressman tom cole, who's in the republican leadership, got asked whether or not the house was ever going to get around to taking a vote on immigration, since immigration was the one policy issue the republican party formally recommended to its elected official members that they do something about after the mitt romney presidential loss last year. so, congressman tom cole was asked by russell berman of "the hill" newspaper in d.c. if there might possibly be time to give immigration a vote in the house between now and the end of the year, since it already passed the senate and, frankly, the house doesn't seem all that busy. here was his response. >> but, you know, immigration is a divisive and difficult issue itself. the idea that congress can -- look, we haven't -- we're not sure we can chew gum, let alone walk and chew gum, so let's just chew gum for a while." >> we don't know, we can walk
1:04am
and chew gum, let alone walk -- you know, can we just chew gum for a while? congressman raul labrador of idaho had been very involved in the discussions about immigration on the republican side. he now tells the "associated press", "i don't think there is going to be sufficient time for us to discuss immigration." congressman mario diaz-balart, also a leading voice for republicans on this issue, tells "congressional quarterly," "our problem now is time. if i knew that we had a lot more time, then my assessment would be really rosy." but alas, there's so much to do, so many days to not work at all because there's nothing on the schedule in congress. it's amazing. on the senate side, the most visible republican in favor of immigration reform, of course, has been florida senator marco rubio. today, as advocates for immigration reform and the white house and democrats continue to ramp up their agitation for a last-minute, 11th-hour push to finally get something passed on immigration, marco rubio today bravely stepped up to the plate and sent his spokesperson out to announce that the senator no
1:05am
longer supports his own proposal on immigration. courage. senator rubio wrote a comprehensive immigration bill. he went on conservative talk radio and talked people into it and defended the whole idea of it. he pushed his bill in the senate. he was 1 of 14 republican senators who voted for the comprehensive immigration bill that finally passed there. but now that it's clear that house republicans are just going to let it die, marco rubio jumped and is disavowing his own legislation, disavowing his own idea. he's against it now, his own thing. and that's actually turning out to be kind of a grand old tradition in the grand old party. it's a weird feature of our politics now that republicans in elected office turn against their own policy ideas, ideas that they came up with themselves, that they championed, legislation that they sponsored, stuff they voted for in the past. these things suddenly fall out of favor and become unsupportable, even though these guys once stood for these ideas themselves.
1:06am
i do not know what signal it is that they get, you know. how do they know when it's time to change the channel? oh, i'm against this now? are you sure? when do i -- sometimes it happens so suddenly, it is just like somebody grabbed the remote control and started clicking. >> let's start, first of all, with mandates. >> you're probably picking up 1,000, some estimates $1,800 on your premiums for people that don't have health insurance because of the expensive use of emergency rooms as an example. there isn't anything wrong with it except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom, but when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then out to lie the same way for health insurance. i believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates. >> that was iowa senator chuck grassley in the summer of 2009
1:07am
making the case on fox news for an individual mandate in health reform. then came, you know, later that same year, when senator grassley, who had supported individual mandates all along said he didn't support them anymore. now he says they are "an intrusion into private life." what was the signal that he received that it was time to turn against his own idea there? somebody flipped the switch for him. or consider congressman paul ryan. congressman ryan used to love the idea of an economic stimulus. back when the recession, that stimulus was supposed to cure belonged to a republican president. >> now, i just recently read in our local capitol hill newspaper that members from the majority party in the other body want stimulus. they're breaking with their party leadership and asking for stimulus legislation to pass, because in their home states, they have a lot of people who are losing their jobs. what we're trying to accomplish is to pass the kinds of
1:08am
legislation that when they've passed in the past have grown the economy and gotten people back to work. we want to make it easier for employers to keep people employed. we want to make it easier for employers to invest in their businesses, to invest in their employees and to hire people back to work. >> so, stimulus, yes! a stimulus would surely put people back to work and fix this recession. we need a stimulus, so said paul ryan in 2002 when his party controlled the white house. but when president obama thought maybe a stimulus would be a good idea, because we were facing the worst downturn since the great depression, somebody had changed paul ryan's channel. >> we can do better than this. this bill, this economic stimulus package is unworthy of our new president's signature. this is just a long spending wish list from every spending interest group that's out there. if you're going to go out and borrow $825,000 -- >> so, recraft it for me, congressman ryan. >> this is not going to work, and that's the concern. >> this stimulus thing is not
1:09am
going to work. who would ever think that a stimulus bill would work? paul ryan's change of heart would have been embarrassing on its own, but it got worse when he was forced to admit that his office had requested money from the 2009 stimulus bill, even though he said that they had not. and even though he said the whole thing wouldn't work. if it wouldn't work, then why did you want some to take home with you? that kind of thing that's happened often enough in recent republican politics that it's become almost its own kind of humor, like a knock-knock joke, or a guy walks into a bar joke. back in 2010, senate republicans wanted a bipartisan commission to reduce the deficit. the bill to do just that failed by six votes, with seven of the republican co-sponsors voting against it. you guys came up with the idea. you co-sponsored it and then you voted against -- as jokes go it was kind of the one where you ring the doorbell and run. >> this law failed by seven votes.
1:10am
when seven republicans who had co-sponsored the bill, had co-sponsored the idea, suddenly walked away from their own proposal after i endorsed it. so, they make a proposal, they sign on to the bill, i say, great, good idea. i turn around, they're gone! what happened? >> what did happen to the republicans who supported that idea before they voted against it? what happened, for instance, to senator john mccain of arizona? an early and at times impassioned supporter of immigration reform on moral principles on pain of rebuke from his own party, john mccain kept pushing comprehensive, compassionate immigration reform, because he said he believed deeply that it was the right thing to do, until somebody changed the channel, and all of a sudden, it wasn't the right thing to do anymore. >> at this point, if your original proposal came to a vote in the senate floor, would you
1:11am
vote for it? >> it won't. it won't. that's why we went through the debate of -- >> would you? >> no, i would not. >> that was john mccain saying no, he would not vote yes on his own bill. john mccain giving up on his own immigration ideas when he was running for president in 2008. he was, i guess, far enough away from his presidential campaign by the time the senate voted on immigration the summer that he had switched back to his old position, which means he executed the rare not just flip-flop but flip-flop-flip on an issue that is supposedly one of great personal conviction and principle. everybody knows that congress is really unpopular right now. congress is historically unpopular, unprecedentally unpopular. and part of that is because what congress does when they actually do something, like, say, shut down the government and bring us to the brink of an international default, just for fun. but part of why they are so unpopular may be that aside from the stuff that deliberately hurts the country, they don't
1:12am
really do much of anything else. this chart shows the number of bills passed by congress since 1947. 1947 is on the far left side of the screen. and you see it goes up in time as you move to the right. back there, president harry truman back in 1947, he called that congress the do-nothing congress because they only passed 900 bills in two years. look at the last congress under speaker john boehner. they only passed 196. and the congress we have now is on pace to be even yet more unproductive. they hit the august recess six bills behind the record unproductive congress just before them. and maybe they will have a miraculous flurry of activity in coming months, but they might have to show fup they wanted to do that. the last congress under john boehner was the least effective congress in the modern history of congress. the one we have now is on track to be even worse. republicans and democrats
1:13am
disagree on a lot of things. republicans and republicans disagree on a lot of things. but after they lost in the white house and they lost in the senate and they lost in the house last year during the last election, the one idea that the republican party itself formally recommended to its own members is that they find a way, they find a republican way to say yes to doing something about our broken immigration policy. find a way, find a republican way to say yes on immigration. and that door is now propped open in front of them, beckoning them to walk through it. a bipartisan bill already passed the senate. if that bipartisan bill was put on the floor of the house today, it would pass the house. democrats in the house even tried to make it more attractive to republicans by folding in an additional republican border security thing that got unanimous bipartisan support in the homeland security committee last spring. with or without that republican sweetener, if you put it on the floor, it would pass. and then the congress under john boehner would have done one thing, and it's the one thing
1:14am
the republican party itself says it needs to do. why can't they do it even when they are doing nothing else at all? joining us now is jose diaz-balart, anchor for telemundo's nightly national newscast. his brother is congressman mario diaz-balart, one of the republicans who supports doing something on immigration in the house. the congressman was supposed to meet with the president to talk about some specific aspects of reform, but we are now hearing that that's been put on hold. jose diaz-balart, thank you for being with us tonight. good to see you. >> good to see you, rachel. thank you very much. if it weren't so tragic, what you've been talking about, it would be a joke. it's not just funny as a fat joke. >> the argument that they can't do it because they're out of time when what they plan on doing is taking more vacation seems to push this into the realm of farce. i almost feel like it's bait for them. they're trying to change the day yammics in this. do you have any insight into what will happen next? >> we look at the fact that there's nothing to do, according
1:15am
to them, and yet, this is an issue that is affecting so many people on a daily basis, rachel. every day, 1,200 people are deported in this country. you know, maybe the website of the government doesn't work well, but boy are they good at deportations. >> yes. >> and they say that by january of next year, there will have been 2 million people deported under the obama administration. rachel, that's the entire population of namibia taken out in five years. and some studies say that as many as 25% of those people deported had u.s.-born children. so, these are families that are being affected. and it's not a sumantical discussion we're having in some university about the pros and cons of, you know, immigration reform as an idea and as a concept. it makes such good financial economic sense, it would help in the deficit, it would help in getting the economy even going a lot faster than it has been
1:16am
going. it would also for conservatives that are worried about amnesty and people paying their dues, it would at least let the united states know who the people are that are here, which are the real bad ones and get them out. and then the ones that have been here, many of whom have children, could continue to contribute much more to this economy now that they could at least come out from under the shadows and not fear deportation. so many reasons. that's why more than 60% of the american people support immigration reform. and yet, what is the congress doing? they're naing post offices. well, you know what? this is really tragic. and we're letting this slip through our fingers as a nation. and just it seems as though there's no fierce urgency of now, and i dare say i don't see a lot of it by democrats either as far as forcing this issue. the president invited some members of congress that support immigration reform, republicans, to the white house today, and five hours later, he canceled that meeting.
1:17am
but you know what? it's in the republican house's responsibility, and they have not done a thing. >> the arguments that you are making are being made across the political spectrum, including by some of the interests that are usually most influential for republicans, particularly vulnerable republicans. >> yeah. >> you're getting business interests, for example, coming out, all of these republican-specific interests coming out and making those very same arguments. i feel like we're in one of those rare situations where the argument is actually over, and one side of the argument has won and the reason it hasn't translated into political action is just inertia. it's like partisan drag. they don't want to do something the president might like, and so, therefore, they don't want to move forward with it. democrats maybe don't want to do it because they want to keep blaming republicans for not doing it. if it is just partisan smallness stopping it, what sort of factors can defeat that? >> i don't see a lot of optimistic factors in the near future if this doesn't get carried out.
1:18am
and i think of, for example, my interviews with mitt romney when he was running for president. initially in the primaries, he was all for self-deportation. that 11 million people would choose to leave this country, many of whom had family members who died trying to get in here and are willing to do whatever it takes to stay in this country. but then when he gets to the general elections, he says that he's for the dream act and even for the president's dream act kids proposal. but then, then, 71% of the hispanic vote, almost 12 million people, voted against the republicans for the president. so, now they're all upset, weirded out and worried. but as time passes, their next election isn't a national election, it's their own district's election. then they're worried about the primary. so you know what? i don't see, if this isn't done in these what, 19 days, rachel, you were telling us? i don't see things happening before then. >> the pressure is on now to make something happen in the 19 days. it will be fascinating to watch
1:19am
that. jose diaz-balart, thank you for being with us, jose. great to see you. >> pleasure. thank you. all right, among those actually performing meaningful work today was a federal district judge in texas. we've got that story ahead, a very big deal story in texas that could have very big political implications as well as health implications. plus, we've got a bit of a scoop tonight about a 2016 presidential hopeful who suddenly has a plagiarism problem. that story's ahead. you'll see it exclusively here. the secret is out. hydration is in. [ female announcer ] only aveeno daily moisturizing lotion has an active naturals oat formula that creates a moisture reserve so skin can replenish itself. aveeno® naturally beautiful results. the recent increase in cafeteria prices is not cool. when you vote for flo, we'll have discounts. ice-cream discounts. multi-cookie discounts. pizza loyalty discounts!
1:20am
[ kids chanting "flo!" ] i also have some great ideas on car insurance. [ silence ] finding you discounts since back in the day. call or click today. i like her. you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec-d®. powerful relief of nasal congestion and other allergy symptoms -- all in one pill. zyrtec-d®. at the pharmacy counter.
1:21am
davi even state senator and gubernatorial candidate wendy davis had to doubly, even triply prove and swear an affidavit stating today that she is who she is when she tried to cast her vote. >> like many women who are voting in texas today, i was required to sign an affidavit, because the name on my voter registration card is slightly different than the name on my driver's license. my driver's license includes my maiden name. my voter registration card does not. >> early voting has started in
1:22am
texas for next week's elections there. and for this election, texas voters are being forced to show documentation in order to be allowed to vote that they have never had to show before. even wendy davis got held up at the polls today and had to swear an affidavit as to her identity since her actual texas i.d. showing her actual name and her actual picture are no longer enough to just let her vote. this is expected to be a light turnout election in texas this year, but if this is how it's going to go for texas women in particular, next november when wendy davis is on the ballot trying to get elected governor in the state, and it's going to be a way bigger turnout than it was right now, this is going to be a huge freaking hullabaloo down there unless they get this voter i.d. thing sorted out. this past summer in june, state senator davis first claimed the national spotlight, when she stood for 13 hours to filibuster texas republicans' plans for a draconian, new antiabortion law. that law was designed to shut down abortion clinics across the state of texas.
1:23am
in a state that has already seen dozens of women's health providers close down, this new law was set to close down at least a third of all the clinics in the state in one fell swoop when it went into effect tomorrow, but then today, less than 25 hours before the law was supposed to take effect, a federal judge in texas blocked a key part of the new antiabortion law. and the ruling was kind of a doozy. look. today there is no issue that divides the people of this country more than abortion. it's the most divisive issue to face this country since slavery. wow! when compared with the intensity, emotion and depth of feeling expressed with regard to abortion, the recent arguments on affordable care act, increasing the debt ceiling and closing the government retreat to near oblivion. sincere and caring persons of both -- excuse me -- sincere and caring persons of goodwill are found on both sides of the issue, but neither side will ever change the position of the other. legislatures and courts will continue to be confounded by the issue for the foreseeable future.
1:24am
no ruling of this court will sway the opinion regarding abortion held by anyone. and indeed, that is not the role of this court. the court may not and will not decide whether there should be abortions in texas. this court is charged only with determining whether certain provisions of house bill 2 are consistent with the constitution of the united states under existing supreme court precedent." and that court decided in that ruling today that provisions of house bill 2 in texas, the antiabortion bill, are not consistent with the constitution of the united states. that federal judge ruled against the part of the texas law that mandates that doctors who do abortions in the state have to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. the ruling says, "the act's admitting privileges provision is without a rational basis and places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion." and so, that provision is blocked. if that provision had taken effect tomorrow, it was expected to close down a dozen texas clinics immediately. now, at least for now, they will not close.
1:25am
that said, the state's republican attorney general immediately filed an appeal with a higher court to block today's ruling and try to save the law so it can shut down all the clinics. that attorney general is greg abbott, and he is the republican running against wendy davis for the governorship of texas. the woman who stood for 13 hours to stop this thing versus the guy who says he will storm all the way to the supreme court of the united states to make sure texas rams it through. and who says elections don't give people a real choice
1:26am
1:27am
1:28am
1:29am
behold, the source of the rand paul maybe isn't ready to run for president plagiarism scandal of 2013. >> what is this? >> new policy. >> flight got you nervous? >> well, there's a problem. i never did tell you about my son, did i? he's a big fan of yours. >> just remember that i was as good as any and better than most. >> he wants to apply here. >> i could have gone up and back and nobody would have been the wiser. >> unfortunately, my son's not all that they promised. but then, who knows what he could do? right?
1:30am
>> it was the urine sample movie to end all urine sample movies. the 1997 sci-fi flop, "gattaca" did not work out well for this clean-cut iteration of ethan hawke, nor did it work out well for anyone else in the movie. the movie just did not take off. that said, it will now live forever in american political history in connection with the rand paul speech plagiarism story that you first learned about tonight on this show in just a moment. that's coming up. igle for medice?
1:31am
that's a good thing, but it doesn't cover everything. only about 80% of your part b medical expenses. the rest is up to you. so consider an aarp medicare supplement insurance plan, insured by unitedhealthcare insurance company. like all standardized medicare supplement insurance plans, they pick up some of what medicare doesn't pay and could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. call today to request a free decision guide to help you better understand what medicare is all about and which aarp medicare supplement plan works best for you. with these types of plans, you'll be able to visit any doctor or hospital that accepts medicare patients... plus, there are no networks, and virtually no referrals
1:32am
needed. there's a range of plans to choose from, too, and they all travel with you anywhere in the country. join the millions who have already enrolled in the only medicare supplement insurance plans endorsed by aarp... an organization serving the needs of people 50 and over for generations... and provided by unitedhealthcare insurance company, which has over 30 years of experience behind it. ♪ call today. remember, medicare supplement insurance helps cover some of what medicare doesn't pay. expenses that could really add up. these kinds of plans could save you in out-of-pocket medical costs. you'll be able to choose any doctor who accepts medicare patients. and there are virtually no referrals needed. so don't wait. with all the good years ahead, look for the experience and commitment to go the distance with you. call now to request your free decision guide.
1:33am
this easy-to-understand guide will answer some of your questions and help you find the aarp medicare supplement plan that's right for you. you may be muddling through allergies. try zyrtec-d®. powerful relief of nasal congestion and other allergy symptoms -- all in one pill. zyrtec-d®. at the pharmacy counter. a really monstrous storm is pounding western europe. it's one of the most powerful coastal storm systems to hit europe in years. hurricane-force winds over 100 miles an hour in some locations, heavy rain and flooding, hundreds of fallen and uprooted trees blocking traffic and crushing cars. in britain, there are tons of power failures. several lines on the london underground have been suspended. the port of dover was shut down for hours, stopping travel across the channel between england and france. winds were up to 120 miles an
1:34am
hour in amsterdam. amsterdam saw lots of damage and people ordered to stay inside. wind gusts were so strong in germany that they shut down parts of the audubon for fear that cars would be blown off the road, no matter how fast they were going. at least 13 storm-related deaths have been reported across western europe. and while this storm is extremely powerful, it's not considered a hurricane by weather standards because of two things. first of all, it didn't form over warm expanses of the open ocean. it happened in too cold a part of the world to be considered hurricane. also, it apparently did not have the prototypical hurricane eye formation, the eye of the storm. it didn't have that. still, it's one of the strongest storm systems to hit western europe in years, and it is causing quite a bit of chaos in the region. at the same time, a storm of a different kind has kicked up between the united states and some of our closest allies in that part of the world. last week, the french paper
1:35am
"lemonde" reported the nsa was monitoring more than 70 million phone calls of french citizens. over one 30-day period from december to january, tens of millions of french phone calls were collected. then today, a similar revelation published in "el mundo" in spain, about 60 million phone calls being monitored in that country. you see this revelation between the prism of reporter glenn greenwald, who is behind both stories, thanks to his source, former nsa contractor edward snowden, who is now hold up in russia, but the hits keep coming from him. the diplomatic impact kicked up an order of magnitude, though, over reports from the german paper that german chancellor angela merkel's personal phone, her cell phone, had also been bugged by the nsa after a direct, and i'm guessing kind of brusk call between the chancellor and president obama, the white house released a statement saying that the president "assured the chancellor that the united states is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of chancellor merkel."
1:36am
is not and will not in the future. those are the key phrases here. so, we're not doing it now and we won't going forward, but did we in the past? >> has the united states monitored the chancellor's phone calls in the past? >> nedra, we are not going to publicly comment on every piece of policy and we have made clear that the united states gathers foreign intelligence of the type gathered by all nations. >> so, no comment on the past. we don't still do it, we won't do it again, but why were we doing it before, and who knew about it? the "wall street journal" reports now that the nsa was doing this basically on their own? the white house cut off some monitoring programs after learning of them, including the one tracking ms. merkel. this quote suggests that president barack obama went nearly five years as president without knowing his own spies were bugging the phones of other world leaders. one senior u.s. official tells "the journal" that the current
1:37am
practice has been for these types of surveillance decisions to be made at the agency level. "these decisions are made at nsa." at nsa? so, that one agency just gets to decide on its own that it's going to bug the cell phones of world leaders for years? and what, just hope the president doesn't find out about it? you guys are making the call on your own? what's going on here? and is the nsa under anyone's control? joining us now is my friend, ron sust yin, putseer prize winning journalist and from the harvard school of ethics and author of many books, including "the one percent doctrine." thanks for being here. >> nice to be here. >> so, what's going on here? and, the hardest thing for me about intelligence stories is that i never believe anybody. how can we know if the nsa is doing this on their own terms? it seems impossible. >> well, it's the way this system has worked in a way for a long time. the word to remember, plausible deniability, two words. what you have here is an
1:38am
operation that yields intelligence, signal intelligence, that the president is kind of not supposed to know the source of. the way these briefings work in the presidential daily brief, rachel, is the president says or hears from a briefer a conversation between angela merkel and silvio berlusconi occurred and this is what they discussed. the president nods and says, fine. he doesn't dig into how he got this information, the spycraft or tradecraft that yielded it, and that's part of a process we've been at for a long time, where the president shouldn't know certain things or shouldn't have to dig into certain things so that he can essentially be deniable, he can lie, for the most part, just say i knew nothing about how this was done or what was occurring, and now i'll look into it. >> so, he can take that call from angela merkel and say i had no idea this was happening. he's not technically lying, but he could have inferred that that was the source of the information he had received
1:39am
about her. >> yeah, and you know, we can sort of joke around about this, but it'd actually kind of a serious thing and it goes right to the heart of the dilemmas of forming powerful intelligence agencies like cia and nsa. >> right. >> in '47 and '52, and the debate that occurred at that time, that this is not a time of war. we're building institutions that will do this as a matter of practice. and it will mean the president will be in a pickle. sometimes he is going to have to lie. and that undermines the moral authority of not just the president but of the nation he represents. that's the real debate. and the question becomes, are we getting so much from these sorts of communications that it's worth what we forfeit in terms of our fundamental oaths? that's a question that's broader. >> and in terms of our overall structure of government and the integrity of the public word on matters like this, the head of the senate intelligence committee, dianne feinstein, said today that she is, "totally opposed" to the u.s. bugging world leaders, and if the nsa is doing this, she said that it means our oversight of the nsa
1:40am
isn't working. and so, she is in charge of the senate intelligence committee. the intelligence committees are incredibly, incredibly powerful as congressional committees go. they have access to a lot of information they're not allowed to talk about publicly. she's implying that congress had no idea about this either and that nsa is just not overseen. what do you think of that? >> i think it's part of a bit of a look the other way quality to a lot of the intelligence gathering in the united states. these are large, independent agencies. they do act. they act based on certain broad ideals but a bit of an ends justify the means kind of philosophy. and when it comes down to it, the practices, the techniques are often not clear, even to people on intelligence committees. remember, they're in briefings in many cases where they can't even take notes, and then they have to walk out the door. and i think what we're seeing here are some of the perils of these actions coming out. they're going to come out eventually. and in this era, they're coming out fast and furious from folks like snowden and others, and the
1:41am
united states having to answer to them in a way that, frankly, is a little bit different. >> ron, are you -- i can hear you saying that, essentially, these agencies, nsa and others, including cia, are not well governed, they're not well integrated into our system of accountability in the way that accountability's supposed to flow up toward leaders who have to explain themselves in public and to other leaders. i hear that, but are you also saying that these agencies are not governable, that they are now so big and so powerful and their power is so integrated that there's nothing that could be done to oversee them effectively the way they exist now? >> many people say it's time for a church commission style group to gather. remember the '70s, that was the church commissions that oversaw excesses of the cia. it's time for that kind of an organization to gather in terms of nsa. nsa is a massive organization, and its organization internally is very confusing.
1:42am
and listen, think about this, how many people have the clearance or the opportunity, if you will, to look at nsa information, dispatches, the great pool that edward snowden has? the nsa right now ostensibly, should give us that number. how many thousands of people? because what you're dealing with here is something fundamental, which is the moral authority of the united states, and right now we're probably going to have a lot of countries coming to us, saying all right, i want to know exactly what's being done not just to my populations, because a lot of countries know we have their populations under surveillance, but especially their leaders who are feeling a little bit apique now. in 2002, when we ostensibly start wiretapping merkel, that's a time when we were having a battle over curveball. remember him? and the iraqi defector who was a fabricator and weapons of mass destruction? many people in the german government were under surveillance, signal intelligence in that period. again, it goes to the heart of
1:43am
what the united states says it does versus what people later find out it actually is doing. not good. >> ron suskind, senior fellow at harvard, center for ethics and author of "the one percent doctrine," among others. thank you, ron. it is one thing to grapple with unchecked power and unaccountable power. when you also find out that that unchecked and unaccountable power is bad at what they do, bad internal systems and they don't actually understand their own work very well, then you have created a monster. all right, still ahead, our exclusive report on how one senate republican who has big 2016 dreams just really awkwardly plagiarized a speech. we'll be right back. maybe you've noticed.
1:44am
1:45am
is there a lot of worry building up around a daily problem? well ladies, now there's big news
1:46am
in controlling your overactive bladder symptoms. thinking less about them with new oxytrol for women. it's a patch. the first and only over the counter treatment for overactive bladder. it's good to know how to put the control back in your go. new oxytrol for women. see this sunday's newspaper for a five dollar coupon.
1:47am
hey, news today out of washington, d.c. surprising news. somebody in congress says they will actually do something. senate majority leader harry reid announcing today that he's going to bring the employee non discrimination act up for a vote, and soon. enda is the longstanding, long-suffering bill that simply says you can't get fired or refused a job because of your sexual orientation or identity. so, you can't put up a sign that says "gays need not apply" if you are hiring people to work for you. that's it. it's very simple. senator reid says he will bring
1:48am
that bill up for a vote maybe as early as next week. greg sergeant at the "washington post" reporting tonight that democrats are lobbying republicans, including jeff flake of arizona and rob portman of ohio to see if they can get their support on this nondiscrimination bill, even though they're republicans. but now we have a programming note for you, which is that on wednesday night of this week, i'm going to be doing an exclusive interview with senator harry reid to see how he plans to get this historic bill through the senate and much more. wednesday night, an exclusive interview with senate majority leader harry reid, right here on this show. oh, we have so much to talk about. the secret is out. hydration is in. [ female announcer ] only aveeno daily moisturizing lotion has an active naturals oat formula that creates a moisture reserve so skin can replenish itself. aveeno® naturally beautiful results.
1:49am
1:50am
1:51am
>> the year was 1997, ethan hawk and uma thurman were two of the biggest names in hollywood and teamed up to make an odd futureristic movie about life in a society where your genes and dna would determine where your
1:52am
life would go. your genetic make up was used to determine your usefulness to society. >> ten fingers, ten toes. that's all that used to matter. not now. now only seconds old, the exact time and cause of my death was already known. >> neurological conditions, 60%, manic depression, 40% probability. disorder, 99% probability. life expectancy, 32.4 years. >> gatica was excellently weird in its own weird but it was a flop. it sold only enough tickets to
1:53am
take in a third of what it cost to make it so rearly nobody saw it mac in 1997. or somebody saw it or read the wikipedia page about it because the speech that rand paul gave seems to have been totally plagiarized from the wikipedia page from gatica. what's weirder is trying to be a candidate for president, which rand paul is trying to do, and thinking that you're going to get away with lifting your speeches from wikipedia while doing that. rand paul traveled to the home of jerry farwell's liberty university. and the theme he used to illustrate that was basically he said that people who are pro choice on the issue of abortion
1:54am
are sort of like the evil autocratic state in the movie gatica. they want to kill off anyone whose genes are not approved of in society. people who are pro choice want to start practicing nazi eugenics in america. so therefore, vote for ken. it is kind of weird. >> in the movie gatica, eugenics is coming and dna plays the primary role in determining your social climax. >> the weird thing about that line in the not too distant future, eugenics is common is that that line appears almost verbatim in the wikipedia entry on gatica. hey, that's what rand paul said. and it's not a coincidence.
1:55am
it's a description of the plot line of gatica. due to frequent screaming, he faces genetic prejudice. the only way to achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a borrowed ladder. >> to the frequent screenings, facing genetic discrimination. the only way to achieve his dream of becoming abastronaut is he has to become a borrowed ladder. >> his speech was totally ripped off of wikipedia. ethan hawk's character assumes an identity of a former swimming star with a genetic profile second to none who had been injured in a car accident, leaving him senator. >> he assumes the identity of a world class swimming athlete. >> he is up there reading
1:56am
wikipedia. >> right senator? >> jerome buys his identity, uses his dna, blood, hair, tissue to pass the screening. >> rand paul wants to be president but right now he is lifting whole sections of wikipedia entry and hoping no one will notice. herman cane plagiarized donna summer. but you know what? that was herman cane. when joe biden got caught in 1988, that was seen as the end of his presidential run and it took him more than a decade because he was allowed back into the top tier. what will happen to rand paul?
1:57am
we will let you know if we hear back. in the meantime, this is the last thing he needs right now. the sitting republican is now waiting on a possible election day and thanksgiving. he gets before election day is this duty at jerry fallwell talking about a 1990s umaer thisman -- thurman movie and plagiarizing wick paid ya -- wikipedia. i think rand paul is going to have to explain himself on this. we will keep you posted on what sort of explanation the senator will offer.
1:58am
now to "the last word" with lawrence o'donnell. polygamy rice. >> good tuesday morning. right now on "first look," the obama administration new three years ago that millions that liked their health insurance actually cannot keep it. u.s. navy dialing back our surveillance. somber anniversary. one year ago today superstorm sandy forever changed the landscape of 24 states. how well have you recovered and what's ahead? plus st. louis juggled both the world series and monday night football. britney spears is unknowingly help the